Need for a cultural shift towards better research practices, starting from our department 1
Lack of a review process in most pre-registrations
Increasing demand for transparency and Open Science
Establish a sustainable MRB by:
Supporting clarity and transparency in pre-registration
Offering advisory methodological feedback
Maintaining impartiality (e.g., MRB members will not be listed as co-authors)
Encouraging Open Science practices
Voluntary submission to the MRB
Advisory only, not gate-keeping
Diverse expert reviewers (Statisticians, Psychometricians, Experts of the specific Psychological field)
Not a tailored revision of the project, more of a quality check (i.e., sample size justification, clear hypothesis, planned data analysis)
Authors identify an appropriate pre-registration template (e.g. OSF)
Authors complete the chosen template and submit it to the MRB
Review and Feedback (multiple rounds if needed)
Pre-registration Submission
Final Check and Badge Award (if standards are met)
Monitor change in pre-registration rates among published studies over time
Success will be defined as exceeding a 10% pre-registration rate among eligible studies within the first two years
Promoting a culture of preregistration, transparency, open science and and fostering better research practices
Attitudes toward preregistration and Open Science
Perceived usefulness and feasibility of MRB
Differences between Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and Tenure Track faculty members.
Total respondents: 53 out of 142 (representing approximately 37% of the department’s academic staff).
Tenure-track: 31 out of 65
ECRs: 22 out of 77
BIAS?
ECRs tended to attribute greater importance to the possible causes of the replication crisis
Most respondents were familiar with Open Science practices
Open materials and open data were used more frequently than pre-registration of hypotheses or analyses.
Overall, most researchers felt that these practices are important
Not everyone expressed a need for a MRB, but many indicated interest and potential willingness to engage with it.
How could we improve people’s interest in the MRB?
What incentives can be given to reviewers?
Should going through the MRB be mandatory?
If so, how can it be implemented without researchers feeling threatened?
PYMS June 5th 2025 - ambra.perugini@phd.unipd.it